Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/887,273

SACRIFICIAL LAYER FOR SUBSTRATE ANALYSIS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 12, 2022
Examiner
BODNAR, JOHN A
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
482 granted / 579 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
604
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 579 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This application, 17/887273, attorney docket AD8401-US 111548-272705, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Intel Inc, and has an effective filing date of 8/12/2022 based on the filing date. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. 2007/0155165). As for claim 1, Park teaches in figure 4B, a substrate (41) comprising: a first layer (43); a first volume of a first material in the first layer (liner 52, between the walls of 43), wherein the first volume of the first material in the first layer extends from a first side of the first layer to a second side of the first layer opposite the first side of the first layer; a second layer (44) on the first side of the first layer; a second volume (52 between walls of 44) of a second material in the second layer, wherein the second volume of the second material extends from a first side of the second layer to a second side of the second layer opposite the first side of the second layer; and wherein the second volume of the second material in the second layer is adjacent to the first volume of the first material in the first layer. (it is directly above and contiguous) As for claim 2, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the second volume of the second material completely overlaps the first volume of the first material in the first layer (from the top view, the second volume completely covers the first volume). As for claim 3, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the first volume of the first material in the first layer proximate to the second side of the first layer is not coplanar with the second side of the first layer. (it extends only to the top of the transistor gate 42b). As for claim 4, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first material includes a selected one or more of: an epoxy material, a liquid mold material, or dielectric material; and wherein the second material includes a selected one or more of: a dielectric or an epoxy. (Liner 56 is a dielectric TaN. [0033]). As for claim 5, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches that the first material and the second material are a same material. (they are continuous, and deposited together). As for claim 6, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches a liner over the first liner [0037], which, when remapped to the first material, the first liner 56 physically separates the first volume of the liner of the first material from the first layer and physically separates the second volume of the second material from the second layer. As for claim 7, Park teaches the substrate of claim 6, wherein the liner (the second liner) includes a selected one or more of: a dielectric material, an epoxy material, or liquid mold material. (liner is TaN [0037). As for claim 8, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches that that a side of the first volume of the first material in the first layer that extends from the first side of the first layer to the second side of the second layer is substantially perpendicular to the first side of the first layer. (shown in figure 4A, vertical sidewalls are the result of anisotropic etch [0033].) As for claim 9, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1 and teaches that the first layer includes portions of a circuit. (42 is a transistor [0042]). As for claim 10, Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a portion of a selected one or more of: one or more bonded wafers, a wafer that includes one or more individual dies, a package substrate, or a packaged unit. (the device on is substrate that comprises transistor, which inherently require separation into individual dies to provide a useful device). As for claim 11, Park teaches in figure 4B a wafer comprising: a first layer (43) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side; a second layer (44) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side of the second layer is on the first side of the first layer; a third layer (46) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side of the third layer is on the first side of the second layer; and a cavity (48, on right side of figure) extending from the first side of the third layer to the second side of the first layer. and a side of the cavity in the first layer is substantially perpendicular to the first side of the first layer. (shown in figure 4A, vertical sidewalls are the result of anisotropic etch [0033].) As for claim 12, Park teaches the wafer of claim 11, wherein a bottom of the cavity proximate to the second side of the first layer is not coplanar with the second side of the first layer. (offset by the height of the transistor 42). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. (U.S. 2014/0131876). As for claim 13, Park teaches the wafer of claim 11, but does not teach a comprising a volume of epoxy in the cavity, the volume of epoxy extending from the second side of the first layer to the first side of the first layer. However, Park uses an adhesive barrier layer of TaN to line the via before filling to protect the ILD from metal contamination and pealing (Park [0033]), and Hua suggest that an epoxy can be used for the same reason (Hua [0020]). Using epoxy as a substitute adhesive barrier was known, the technical ability existed to substitute epoxy for TaN, and the result of the substitution was predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute epoxy for a dielectric adhesive, because polymers improve moisture resistance in the barrier to protect the metal from corrosion. As for claim 14, Park in view of Hua make obvious the wafer of claim 13, and in the combination, Park teaches a dielectric on the volume of epoxy. (Park uses a second liner over the first liner before forming the upper metal in figure 4d. [0037].) As for claim 15, Park in view of Hua makes obvious the wafer of claim 14, and in the combination, the dielectric completely overlaps the volume of epoxy. ([0037]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2022
Application Filed
May 15, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604473
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604488
SILICON CAPACITOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588277
FORMING WRAP AROUND CONTACT WITH SELF-ALIGNED BACKSIDE CONTACT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588224
METAL-INSULATOR-METAL (MIM) CAPACITORS WITH CURVED ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588516
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND DATA STORAGE SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 579 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month